Disparities in Pregnancy Outcomes According to Marital and Cohabitation Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the risks and trends of adverse pregnancy outcomes among mothers in common-law unions versus traditional marriage relationships. METHODS: We conducted a birth cohort-based study of all 720,586 births registered in Quebec for the years 1990 to 1997. RESULTS: The proportion of births to common-law mothers more than doubled from 20% in 1990 to 44% in 1997. Preterm birth, low birth weight, small for gestational age, and neonatal and postneonatal mortality rates increased progressively from mothers legally married, to common-law unions, to lone mothers with father information, to lone mothers without father information on birth registrations. Adjusted odd ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for common-law versus legally married mothers were 1.14 (95% CI 1.11, 1.17) for preterm birth, 1.21 (95% CI 1.18, 1.25) for low birth weight, 1.18 (95% CI 1.16, 1.20) for small for gestational age, 1.07 (95% 0.97, 1.19) for neonatal death, and 1.23 (95% CI 1.04, 1.44) for postneonatal death after controlled for observed individual- and community-level characteristics. The crude and adjusted odds ratios were virtually unchanged over time. CONCLUSION: Pregnancy outcomes are worse among mothers in common-law unions versus traditional marriage relationships but better than among mothers living alone. Modest disparities in pregnancy outcomes in common-law versus traditional marriage relationships have persisted despite the striking rise in common-law unions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-2
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".